3 ms·

Society doesn't function because of law enforcement (and the threat of violence by the state), it functions because the super majority doesn't break the laws. I

Society doesn't function because of law enforcement (and the threat of violence by the state), it functions because the super majority doesn't break the laws. If the social contract breaks away, you can have an army but you can't run a modern society on threats, or you'll exhaust the resources by government watchmen, and you'll end up with 10% in society being productive and the rest watching them and each other.

lazide 4y ago
I think you misunderstand my point. Good fences make good neighbors. Enforcement is the fence. Functional societies have reasonable fences, and rarely need to test them in the majority case, because they’re functional. There is no point in thinking about testing something you know works. When someone starts wandering off, or a problem case is there, it also deals with them in a way that doesn’t undermine everything else. It keeps problems at bay. Without that fence, or when the fence starts being moved so it’s NOT in the right place, problems cascade and grow, society starts fighting itself and others as trust is lost in institutions and other people, and eventually, either vigilantism, civil war or mass corruption is the result. Like you’re discussing. It’s a constant, ongoing process. This also makes it pretty rough being an edge case, which is the context of the thread we’re in. A society beyond a certain, relatively small size without law enforcement (or similar boundary setting and enforcement) will, no matter how amazing, fall apart as the natural forces of corruption and selfishness tear at it unchecked. It doesn’t have to be a professional corps of folks, but it has to be a working mechanism though. Even small groups have this. Usually in the form of a chief, village head, etc. Larger groups of course need something more formalized eventually, just due to scale. Regardless, not towing the line is going to get you stomped on, unless you’re able to get under the radar, or are part of a large enough group that you can force the apparatus to leave you alone. Though that definitely contributes to the whole ‘mass corruption’ problem.

lazide 4y ago

I think you misunderstand my point. Good fences make good neighbors. Enforcement is the fence. Functional societies have reasonable fences, and rarely need to test them in the majority case, because they’re functional. There is no point in thinking about testing something you know works. When someone starts wandering off, or a problem case is there, it also deals with them in a way that doesn’t undermine everything else. It keeps problems at bay. Without that fence, or when the fence starts being moved so it’s NOT in the right place, problems cascade and grow, society starts fighting itself and others as trust is lost in institutions and other people, and eventually, either vigilantism, civil war or mass corruption is the result. Like you’re discussing. It’s a constant, ongoing process. This also makes it pretty rough being an edge case, which is the context of the thread we’re in. A society beyond a certain, relatively small size without law enforcement (or similar boundary setting and enforcement) will, no matter how amazing, fall apart as the natural forces of corruption and selfishness tear at it unchecked. It doesn’t have to be a professional corps of folks, but it has to be a working mechanism though. Even small groups have this. Usually in the form of a chief, village head, etc. Larger groups of course need something more formalized eventually, just due to scale. Regardless, not towing the line is going to get you stomped on, unless you’re able to get under the radar, or are part of a large enough group that you can force the apparatus to leave you alone. Though that definitely contributes to the whole ‘mass corruption’ problem.